Favouritism, bullying and off humour. Then the CEO gets onto Twitter
SFA referee Charlie Richmond yesterday told the BBC he was resigning from his role as a top class official citing reasons that will horrify and resonate with many of you. Speaking last night he said:
“Referee’s committee members, who you would expect to get support from, have told me across the table ‘this is nothing to do with your refereeing ability, it’s nothing to do with your experience but you won’t be getting high profile games because you’re not seen as a team member.
“The fact that you don’t share the same conversation or the same humour doesn’t mean to say you are the bad penny.
“The fact that you don’t share the same conversation or the same humour doesn’t mean to say you are the bad penny.
“In any walk of life a natural progression takes place but the person underneath doesn’t need to stab someone in in the back to advance quicker.
“I received a phone call telling me to watch what I was saying in dressing rooms because this is 10am on a Monday and it’s filtered back already.
“Much more disappointing, is that they are believing that information.”
Coming hard on the heels of last season’s bullying allegations by an official and nature of what was regarded by some as suitable material to joke about in the workplace, the SFA sounds like an old boys club.
SFA chief executive, Stewart Regan, tweeted in response: “Referee appointments are based on performance. Would prefer to see consistent under performers ‘retire’ without feeling need to blame others”.
Ouch. Listen to her.
Charlie Richmond may or may not be a rubbish referee, Mr Regan could easily persuade me of the former, but that is not the point. It is not the responsibility of the employee to manage the performance review process. If the organisation manages this process well, the employee becomes an active part of proceedings, even when performance is worthy of criticism.
This situation has not been managed well. It is a corporate failure at an organisation which has been dogged by corporate governance issues for years.
The SFA have been accredited as Investors In People. The scenario where a senior referee complains to the media about favouritism while the chief executive retorts online about “consistent under performers” (sic) is surely the antithesis of good Investors In People. It smacks of lousy people management.
If you have underperforming staff, make it clear to them where they are going wrong. Do so in an inclusive way, ensure those charged with performance communication are able to do so without accusations of favouritism (Richmond) or bullying (Craven), and for goodness sake, ensure the chief exec doesn’t get bitchy on Twitter.
If you or I accused the SFA of behaviour like this we would be dismissed as irrelevant but the organisation needs to take action to ensure there are no more accusations of bullying, favouritism, selective-humour-bonding and executives disrespecting officials on Twitter.
Can you imagine what the very same people would be doing today if Neil Lennon had a go at a referee on Twitter?
If you would like to contribute a piece to CQN Magazine email me, celticquicknews@gmail.com.